Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Separately you might remember the story about a senior Tory backbencher in the last parliament who was catfished on Grindr and then blackmailed into providing contact details of other Tory MPs. He eventually announced this and went to the police about it and spoke about his guilt later (I have to be honest, I'm not sure I have much sympathy). But charges have been brought in that and it turns out it was a Labour councillor who did this to a few politicians

Ex-councillor charged with blackmail over Westminster 'honeytrap'
Oliver Steadman, a former Labour politician and mental health charity worker, is due to appear in court on November 3 charged with offences against five people
Aubrey Allegretti, Chief Political Correspondent
Wednesday September 17 2025, 11.10am, The Times


Oliver Steadman has volunteered with the Labour Party since 2018, according to his LinkedIn profile
ISLINGTON LABOUR

A 28-year-old former Labour councillor has been charged with offences including blackmail over the Westminster "honeytrap" scandal.

Oliver Steadman, 28, has been charged with blackmail and communication offences in relation to five victims in Westminster politics including MPs, the Crown Prosecution Service and Scotland Yard said.

He has been remanded to appear at Westminster magistrates' court on November 3.

The charges relate to an investigation that was carried out by the Met's Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team.

Steadman was arrested in June 2024 as part of police inquiries into the Westminster "honeytrap" scandal. His identity has been secret until now, given strict laws protecting the anonymity of arrested suspects.

At the time of his arrest, Steadman was a Labour councillor and worked at the mental health charity Mind as a public affairs and campaign manager, according to his LinkedIn profile. The profile also said he was a school governor and had volunteered with the Labour Party since 2018.

The Westminster "honeytrap" scandal emerged in April 2024, when MPs said they were messaged on WhatsApp by a person calling themselves Charlie or Abi.

Different personas were said to have been used to target gay and straight politicians, as well as other senior Westminster figures including advisers and journalists.

The Times revealed that William Wragg, then a senior Tory MP, had started speaking to the person behind the alleged "phishing" scam on the gay dating app Grindr, sending them sexually explicit images of himself.

Malcolm McHaffie, head of the Crown Prosecution Service's special crime division, said: "We have decided to prosecute Oliver Steadman with blackmail and five communications offences in relation to a total of five victims working within politics and Westminster.

"This follows an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service which looked into messages that included alleged unsolicited indecent images sent to a number of people within parliamentary political circles between October 2023 and April 2024 using WhatsApp.

"Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring this case to court and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings."

Very, very weird.

[Sheilbh]

The latest from Your Party (Corbyn faction):

Following this morning's unauthorised email to yourparty.uk supporters, the data controller has reported the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office. We will cooperate with the Information Commissioner in full.

A false membership system has been unilaterally launched, data collected and payments taken. Yourparty.uk has responsibilities to our supporters and duties under the law.

These developments are a blow for everyone who has put their hope in a real alternative. Following Zarah Sultana's unilateral announcement of the launch of a new party on 3 July, an agreement was reached for the Independent Alliance MPs to kickstart the founding process and deliver an open, democratic conference to found a new party. Zarah signed up to this process and was welcomed into the Independent Alliance. She has not been excluded from any discussions – and everyone involved has been committed to a process rooted in inclusivity and mutual respect.

The process was communicated to supporters on 1 August. A working group was established, and a diverse, gender-balanced group of volunteers across the country has been hard at work organising a conference, a huge undertaking on a very short timescale.

As to allegations made against a named individual, Karie Murphy is a trusted and dedicated volunteer. She has never had access to or control of any funds, which are held exclusively for the party. Neither have the other five Independent Alliance MPs had access to, or control over, any funds at any stage.

There is enormous appetite to build a real alternative based on equality and peace. That is what unites us, and there is only one way we can build a party that belongs to everybody: together. We have a historic opportunity to transform this country – we cannot let it go to waste.

FFS

To Zoup's point in the US thread there are in France, the UK and US many on the left who genuinely believe the far-right is on the march. I find the contrast startling.

In France you've had both Macron representing the liberal centre deciding that the existing party structure was a constraint that needed to be swept away (by him) in order to confront the "extremes". At the same time you had forces on the left that historically don't often cooperate deciding to consolidate into a New Popular Front as well as the current Block Everything movement.

In the UK, everyone on the left has decided that this is the moment to double down on factional infighting. Whether that's within the traditions of the Labour Party where we have a leadership of the centre trying to purge the left from the party and being really aggressive in imposing discipline on even soft left opposition - which is tough when you're succeeding but when you're a failing government is just creating resentment. Meanwhile even on the hard-left a new party formed instead of just consolidating with the Greens as a more left-wing alternative; that new party now appears to be splitting in acrimony primarily over issues of ego and factional infighting (within a group at the top of that party that would barely fill a minibus). (I think there is some ideological difference here too but it's not the driver, I don't think.) On the other hand I think there's some union organisation and militancy which is promising.

Similarly dispiriting in the US except that while in the UK there's a moment of flux which everyone on the left is using to settle internal scores, in the US it seems like no-one really wants to change the way they've already been doing things which has, of course, been a period of unalloyed success. Any threat of change or disruption or mobilisation however mild (see David Hogg) needs to be forced out.

Meanwhile a poll today which I could well believe. The two main traditional parties below a third (add in the Lib Dems so the three traditional parties and you're still below 50%):

Westminster Voting Intention:

RFM: 34% (=)
LAB: 16% (-3)
CON: 16% (+1)
LDM: 13% (+1)
GRN: 12% (=)
SNP: 3% (+1)

Via @FindoutnowUK, 17-18 Sep.
Changes w/ 10 Sep.

I hear a lot that many people at the top of Labour frame the job of this government as "four years to save mainstream politics" - or prevent regime change. I don't get a sense that anyone is acting like that. There is no urgency either in government or political strategy like you see in France. I think that matters even away from whether it is successful on its own terms, because the message it sends to everyone else is that you don't really think there's a risk of the rising far-right - because the rhetoric of "WE'RE IN THE FIGHT OF OUR LIVES AGAINST FASCISM" does not cohere with a BAU approach to government or politics. I think it almost acts as a permission for the unpoliticised to not take things seriously or just see this as rhetoric because that's what your own behaviour suggests.

And FWIW I can, from that, see easy routes to things getting far worse than Farage and Reform.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Well yes, after Farage and Co get in and the banning of LGBT flags fails to improve people's lives.... what next?

[Tonitrus]

Withdrawing England from the United Kingdom?

[Tamas]

Well yes, after Farage and Co get in and the banning of LGBT flags fails to improve people's lives.... what next?

Harrasment of different skin colours, that I expect will take a couple of years to play out before me and my family get into the crosshairs.

[Tamas]

I don't know what the solution is, but it's not the "let's not rock the boat" approach that Starmer is doing.

[HVC]

Well yes, after Farage and Co get in and the banning of LGBT flags fails to improve people's lives.... what next?

Harrasment of different skin colours, that I expect will take a couple of years to play out before me and my family get into the crosshairs.

They haven't persecuted the welsh in a while, I think they're due.

[Josquius]

I really need to get a move on with sorting marriage paperwork out. I need my get out of brexit island pass so when Farage takes over I can escape to progressive Switzerland 

[Sheilbh]

Well yes, after Farage and Co get in and the banning of LGBT flags fails to improve people's lives.... what next?

Yeah. I think there's a few scenarios - as I say I think we are currently on course for a fiscal/economic crisis at some point. Reform are promising a lot of spending and not promising ways to pay for it so I can see that happening quickly (if it doesn't happen in the next four years, which it might).

I think it could also even be the case that Reform also can't do anything. If the Tories and now Labour have found it incredibly difficult to actually get anything done in British politics (especially with I think more of a street protest Block Everything strategy from the left), I think people may end up very, very frustrated if they go Tory, Labour, Reform and none of them can actually get anything done.

I also think the most likely outcome (and it's four years out etc etc) is a Lib-Lab pact with Labour as the largest party. I think being leader of the opposition would be Farage's worst nightmare (and he'd be quite old by then) and I think things could fall apart very quickly.

With all of that we have people like Tommy Robinson etc in the wings - with a lot of American cash.

We may get a preview of it next year. It's less extreme in Scotland but the latest poll in Wales for next year's Senedd election:

And in seats:


In both Wales and Scotland I'm not sure it'll be easy to form a government and it may need to be a minority government on a vote by vote basis but even then I think it would be challenging. I don't think any of them will want to provide votes for a Reform government either. But I also think it was generally seen as a mistake, in retrospect, for the Tories to provide the votes for an SNP minority government in 2007 just to beat Labour.

(Latest polls in Scotland have the SNP around about 35%, Labour and Reform floating around 15-20%, Tories and Lib Dems around 10-15% and Greens on 5% - so SNP are a more established hegemonic party there).

[Sheilbh]

I don't know what the solution is, but it's not the "let's not rock the boat" approach that Starmer is doing.

I don't think that's necessarily conscious from Starmer.

Let's say he decides they now need a radical approach. That's fine but to do what? He doesn't have a politics. He doesn't have a vision or a set of beliefs. A huge chunk of not rocking the boat is that he is setting out without a compass so is constantly trying to work out where they're going.

But also I think a huge problem is the one thing Starmer (and Reeves) did believe in was the "populism" analysis and it was wrong. They are to their bone creatures of the institutions. They believed that the problem in Britain in recent years was "populism" and that actually if you removed the people doing bad populist politics, then things would clear up the state would revert to its "Rolls Royce civil service" line etc. That's why they spent the first 6-9 months establishing or expanding the remit of 17 quangos.

I think a year in, what they have discovered is that Tory complaints about courts and getting things done reflected the problems of getting things done and the courts (and in many ways reflect the complaints of reforming ministers under New Labour, just worse). It's not that any of those quangos are doing bad things either it's just if you set up twenty different bodies each with a remit to consider one specific issue (biodiversity, say) and then give them statutory rights to be consulted, "taken account of" etc. They're all going to do their jobs - they'll each look at their one issue. It'll then go to the civil service who will have to spend ages making sure that all of these were "taken account" of and properly analysed for the minister to make a decision - which the courts will then be able to consider on whether sufficient weight was given or account taken of the submission by the independent British Board of Widget Regulation or whatever it is.

I remember Stephen Bush writing about evidence by Lisa Nandy very early into this parliament which he thought suggested we may be in trouble. Because she basically didn't really seem to acknowledge or consider that there were any trade offs in her area as Culture Secretary. I can't remember the exact issue but she was of the view that it was better for the government, better for the public and would boost profits for business too - so the only reason people had not already done it was because they're knaves. I think across the Labour party (and the soft-left media world, like the Guardian) I think that is about the depth of the analysis and they're now in every area hitting reality.

The problem was not populism but sclerosis and I think a lot of the story of the first year of this government has been that slowly dawning reality. They recognise it rhetorically but I'm not sure they have any idea of how to change it and, to go back to my first point, even if thy did it's not clear they'd know what for because the man at the top doesn't know what he wants to do.

And I think instead we've seen institutional capture going on. I still think that the Treasury is running Reeves far more than vice-versa which affects everything government does - for example demanding the DWP cut an extra £5 billion because the sums don't add up leading to the whole disability debacle (rather than, say, preparing the ground for and doing the work of genuine welfare reform which is necessary). Plus she strengthened the powers and role of the OBR because that was the lesson from Truss - with the effect that the scope of fiscal policy is determined by an outside, unelected body whose record in making forecasts (even for the next 6-12 months) is incredibly poor. I suspect Reeves is regretting her choices and getting that she needs to be a political Chancellor not just the elected figurehead of HM Treasury - but I think she's realised too late for it to make any difference.

[Tamas]

Relatedly, I guess:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/19/ministers-tell-environment-agency-to-wave-planning-applications-through

Exclusive: Officials say they have been told to do as little as legally possible to prevent approvals for housebuilding

Like, what have they been doing until now? Going out of their way to make sure building permissions are denied? Non-existent bats in industrial wastelands say "yes".

I mean, I know I am going to upset CC because I am paraphrasing and not quoting but if you read it, the vibe is that the Agency has seen it's job as making sure only green coexisting utopias get approved, which is just utter madness.

[Sheilbh]

So this is where I'm very unsympathetic to the government.

The Environment Agency was set up by parliament. Successive governments have set out what the EA's job is, what it's to consider and what its role is in various things like the planning process. I think especially the nutrient neutrality stuff has been a big issue in some projects - but that is something they've been told to do by parliament. It's a bit like biodiversity net gains.

I think it's really wrong and unfair for the government to in effect ask a quango like them to basically half-arse their statutory duties. We have parliamentary sovereignty. The government has a massive majority. I absolutely think there's a trade off between the EA and other policy goals (like growth and building 1.5 million homes). It is for the government - elected, political, democratically accountable - to make that choice, to make the case to the public and to legislate for it. And they do it because they think that decision will be right from a policy perspective (more growth, more homes) and they will be rewarded politically for that.

I have no time for this approach of we've got quite stringent regulators or a strong independent body covering x but it's causing problems. We don't want the political cost of saying that if we want loads more houses we are going to have weaken the role of the Environment Agency or Natural England or English Heritage or whatever else - so we'll just lean on them to do a shit job.

I'm a strong supporter of decisions being made by democratically elected politicians accountable to parliament as opposed to quangos or judges. The trade off of that is that they have to be accountable for it and make the case politically to the public and to parliament.

I know I've slightly banged on about this quote but I think there is a lot to "to govern is to choose" and I don't think this government makes choices. (Again I think in part that's because they genuinely thought that all the woes were caused by bad Tories doing bad populism rather than trade-offs and decisions and vested interests - so now they keep being confronted that good Labour people doing good "grown up" government" isn't actually enough on its own.)

Edit: But to your question the EA has not been asked to worry about growth or availability of housing or infrastructure. They've been asked to assess things like nutrient neutrality (and I think the bats, or taking over Ebbsfleet are Natural England responsibilities).

[Tamas]

What's quango btw? You have started using this word and I haven't seen it before.

[Sheilbh]

Short for Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation - basically government funded, serving government functions, but independent and not part of or accountable to government departments.

So like the Environment Agency, Arts Council, Law Commission, BBC, OfWat etc.

This is using the technically correct definition used in government account (as you'd expect from accountants), but gives a bit of an idea of quite how many we have
https://www.icaew.com/insights/viewpoints-on-the-news/2025/mar-2025/chart-of-the-week-quangos

[Sheilbh]

I regret to announce that a third faction, "Our Party", has emerged in Your Party

Edit: Frankly I signed up to the mailing list and starting to take it personally that I've not been asked to join a faction